OK, you’ve waited a while for me finally to get to the Lake of Fire in the book of Revelation. But just think of it as the Final Judgment: you know it’s coming soon, but you don’t know when.
Here is what I think about it (both the final judgment and the lake of fire) (clarification: this is not what *I* think of these things; this is what I think *Revelation* is saying about these things). As previously indicated, I do not think Revelation teaches that sinners will be tormented forever. They will be annihilated out of existence.
The horrifying “lake of fire” makes its first appearance in Revelation 19. Christ, along with his heavenly armies, appears from heaven for the “Last Battle.” In a flash their arch-enemies on earth are soundly defeated and punished. The supernatural opponents of Christ – the Beast and his prophet – are thrown, living, into the “lake of fire that burns with sulfur.” Their human allies, on the other hand, are “slain with a sword,” and all the birds become “gorged with their flesh” (19:20-21) In other words, the dead, for now, are dead.
If the author has already informed us that the beast is actually the empire of Rome, then obviously it is difficult to imagine …
To see how the end ends, you need to read to the end of the post. But that cannot be your end if you do not begin by joining the blog. So begin! Then you can end! And remember, in the end, all membership fees go to good ends — helping those in need.
Please forgive my ignorance. Since the Beast is Rome, who is “his prophet”?
Oh boy that seems like an opening for a political joke! But seriously, the prophet is usually understood to be the imperial cult set up to worship the emperor in different parts of the Roman world. This cult is promoting the cause of the emperor, proclaiming his divinity. So it’s like a prophet.
Thank you. That makes sense (and I’m still smiling).
you don’ think the prophet of the beast is a human being?
No, except to say that it’s the humans who promote the worship of the emperor.
So it sounds here like the good deeds (or bad ones) get recorded in the book of life, not what they believe
Bart, apart from the lake of fire mentioned in Revelation: the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus seems (on the face of it) to suggest that there is the possibility of conscious unrelieved torment and suffering in Hades. How should we interpret those verses?
I’m getting to that!
This should keep all young catholic boys and girl in line. Isn’t that the real purpose, control the masses through fear of eternal punishment/death? All organizations, even religions, are about power and control.
Do you believe that the concept of a final judgment (as well as things like the battle between good and evil, a good god vs an evil god [Satan], angels and demons, etc) ultimately came from the influence (directly or indirectly) of Persian Zoroastrianism? From what I have read, it seems that the Persians had these concepts well before Christianity came on the scene. Do you think there’s a connection there, perhaps through second temple Judaism?
I used to, but I don’t any longer. I’ll explain why in my book! (But yes, if there is influence, it is through earlier Judaism.)
Dr. Ehrman, I can see why early Christians had such a hard time accepting Revelation, because from after the Jewish win at Beth Horon in 66 CE, Rome pretty much won each and every battle. It must have been pretty obvious to the Christians of the 2nd century that Jesus’s victory against Rome wasn’t coming anytime soon, if ever. That’s probably why the Kingdom message was re-cast as the spiritual growth of the Church rather than the temporal defeat of Rome.
the authour of matthew has jesus say that whoever breaks the smallest law will be called least in heaven.
are the least in the kingdom or are they referred to as the least by those who are not the least? so in other words the least are not in the kingdom of heaven?
They appear to be in the kingdom. Hard to figure out how the tiered system is supposed to work though.
so is the tiered system where the uncalled do not enjoy all the goodies in heaven when they are not called?
Sorry — I lost the thread. Depends which book you’re asking about.
Professor,
But even after the ‘second death’, the Devil, the beast and prophet are still in the lake of fire? suffering? I can see why followers would then assume anyone thrown in this lake would suffer (for ever) the same fate.
The line “This is the second death, the lake of fire” (20:14) is very compelling part of your theory though.
It is interesting that when the lake of fire is FIRST mentioned (Rev 19) it is with the word “the” in front, as if (the author thinks) the readers know already about this lake- versus introducing it with the word “a” lake of fire etc…not sure is this would translate to the Greek version? or if its just a translation/language process and the word “the” is best used?
Yes, that’s the assumption people make. As with most things, Revelation does not give a completely clear picture. But possibly since the Devil and his angels are immortal beings (as opposed to human), the apparently can’t die. On the “the” — interesting point. Yes, it’s in the Greek.
God should just zap the devil out of existence and avoid all this messy in the pit not in the pit business, not to mention all the grief Satan causes humans.
Wow this author really did not like Rome…
So if neither Paul nor the evangelists nor “John of Patmos” believed in eternal torment for sinners, how and when did this idea get started? Would you agree that as different branches of Christianity developed in the 2nd century (and earlier, yes), that some of these branches saw hell as a way to threaten the others?
Ah, that’s the point of my book!! (Won’t spill all the beans here!)
(grumble) Can you hurry it up a bit? I’m hoping to have my book finished by then, and I could use this for one of the chapters (the one I’m working on now, actually). 🙂
Hey, doin’ the best I can!
> those they had earlier martyred will come back to life and rule with Christ on earth for a thousand years
Any idea of what “rule” means? Is it a more or less Roman governmental order with Christ as Emperor, the martyrs as subordinate government officials in charge of provinces, the police, military, civil works, etc.?
Hard to figure out. Rule whom exactly? And why are there other nations and other kings of earth after the New Jerusalem appears??
Did you know the phrase ‘kings of the earth’ referred to the Pharisees and priesthood?
I have a few examples if you’re interested.
Acts 4:23-28;
And being let go, they went to their own company, and reported all that the CHIEF PRIESTS AND ELDERS HAD SAID UNTO THEM.
And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:
Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?
The KINGS OF THE EARTH stood up, and THE RULERS were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.
For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.
They addressed the Pharisees as;
“Kings of the earth and rulers”
It’s a quotation of Scripture thought to *apply* to the leaders of the Jews, but it’s not a phrase, to my knowledge, that a writer *composed* thinking of the leaders of the Jews. “King” refers to Herod here, “rulers” to Jewish leaders.
Whew! Glad I’m just being annhilated! One thing that NEVER appealed to me was living forever, on earth or in heaven. Really, eternal life sounds like Hell to me. What I would love is a few years having all my questions answered then lights out… I’m done! I know there is actually a name for the phobia of eternal life but can’t think of it at the moment. I should look it up! Anyone else out here that also has no desire for eternal life? Especially if I don’t have my body and am not on earth or, at least, the physical universe.
I have stated here that the prospect of eternal life does not appeal to me. All I can figure is that eternal life must be so wonderful that my infantile mortal brain cannot grasp it. Like so much of Christian thinking, it’s just a mystery.
I just thought of a story about the conversion of King Radboud, of the Frisians, one of the last heathen rulers of Europe. As he was ready to be dunked, he asked the missionary where his, Radboud’s, ancestors were. He was assured that they were in Hell. Radboud backed out of the process, saying he’d rather spend his eternity in Hell with his ancestors than in Heaven with Christians like the missionary about to baptize him.
I’m with you! Nothing they say tells of living with nature and I don’t want to live in any sterile place, whether gold-paved or over-heated, thank you! I need to be where things, live, interact, evolve and die. And that includes me!
I agree with you. Any images/predictions of what eternal life would look like are unappealing to me.
Here’s a thought I’ve often had: Both the good and the evil live forever in heaven or hell, but in hell they are aware of the passage of time, and in heaven they are not.
(Hey, it’s all speculation anyway!)
Fear of eternity is apeirophobia, literally fear of the infinite or boundless. Usage seems to extend the concept to eternal life, which is not quite the same thing as being scared of infinities, such as dividing by zero.
Interesting.
“the dead were judged by the things written in the books, according to what they had done” (20:11.)
Kind of flies right in the face of the “faith alone” plan of salvation.
Yeah, pretty much. Unless you think that only believers in Jesus did/do enough good things.
I suppose this is why Luther was reluctant to include Rev. in his canon.
If we had a dollar every time we discovered a new contradiction in the Bible, we’d be richer than Bill Gates. Hey the apostle Paul called, he wants his letter back from Ephesians 2:8.
Great idea of what the first century writers thought. My question is what about this great white throne judgment ? And this book of life that the writer mentions. What is this suppose to represent? If anyone who has done reading into the Hebrew Bible, there is very little mentioned about a book of life. And where it is mentioned it’s up for different interpretation at best. Unless this concept was a development by apocalypticism in the time leading up to Jesus and throughout the first century. What are your thoughts Bart?
The idea of book(s) of life is very old, in the Hebrew Bible. The idea of future day of judgment is found in other apocalyptic texts. So it’s a combination of these two.
The beast and false prophet will be thrown alive into the lake of fire – it appears only they and Satan will be tormented forever.
Is this the anti-trinity?
Interesting idea. The problem is that the Chrsitians are not yet using the term “trinity” at this point.
They’re not using the term trinity put the concept might be around.
Rev 16:13 says “Then I saw three impure spirits that looked like frogs; they came out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet”
Rev 16:15 is a satanic perversion of Jesus’s words in matthew
The other beast or false prophet of Rev 13 has “two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon” – Christ’s dual nature.
Seven-headed Beast is the seven spirits of God.
Dr. Ehrman,
When did this apocalypse come be read literally?
Thanks, Jay
As referring to things soon to happen? Probably very early. But I haven’t looked deeply into it yet.
What did the author of Revelation mean when he used the phrase “tormented day and night forever and ever”? It certainly sounds like he is describing a state of suffering that doesn’t ever come to an end. Or is there something about the English translation that is misleading?
There are questions about the translation, but even taking this common rendering, it’s clear that the author can’t mean that literally beause of things he says later. So it must mean something general like “a lot without remission.” Until some later point….
you’ve lost me
here you say
“author has already informed us that the beast is actually the empire of Rome,”
and that
“the Beast and his prophet – are thrown, living, into the “lake of fire that burns with sulfur.””
and that
” there are no humans in this sulfurous lake. ”
but in
https://ehrmanblog.org/more-symbolism-in-revelation-666-the-number-of-the-beast/
“the identity of the beast: “This calls for wisdom:. . .it is the number of a person. Its number is six hundred sixty-six”
and
““Caesar Neron” in Hebrew letters, they add up to 666.”
I am pretty sure Nero was a human person
Yes, Revelation is confusing in just this way. Sometimes the beast represents Rome and sometimes its ruler(s).
The Emperor was the living embodiment of Rome, so it’s not really much of a stretch. Obviously Nero will die, like all mortal men, but while Rome endures, there will be an emperor (sometimes several).
I see plenty of modern poetry (or popular song lyrics) that work along similar lines, and people don’t take that literally, because we know who wrote it, and very often they’ve given interviews about what they meant by it.
Revelation took on authority because after a relatively short time it became a found object, its author forgotten, its original meaning obscured. And Nero was just a bogeyman Christians frightened their children with. He did, in fact, die a pretty miserable death. That part did come true. There is a power in poetry.
Thank you for clarifying that. That was another thing that always confused me. 1 Corinthians 14:33 – once again let’s give a round of applause to Paul, the #1BU**shi**er
The number of the beast is the number of a man. The man is Nero but the beast is the anti-christ (or false-prophet) which is exercising all authority of the first beast on its behalf – after the near fatal wound. Its the satanic union of god and man.
Rome is just the prostitute which sits on the 7-headed beast (the empire) whos power ultimately comes from the dragon (satan).
It does make sense that the “Lake of Fire” is symbolic for total destruction. I can’t envision the author depicting the Lake of Fire being a place where lost souls are swimming around in it being tortured for all eternity. While those who do believe in a literal Hell may envision the place with flames, they don’t generally don’t have a concept of Hell being “only” a Lake of Fire.
Do you have any evidence of when Hell went from being a place of total destruction to a place of eternal torment?
Yup, that’s what my book is about!
The wicked are exterminated, but there is no Hell, only Heaven: Although there is a lot of diversity among Unitarians, this “heaven but no hell” theology reminds me of the “universal salvation” theology of the Universalism part of Unitarian Universalism in that there is no Hell in this Unitarian Universalism. I guess the main difference Is the “universal” part of Unitarian Universalism with “all” going to heaven.
It may be, Bart, that, “both Jesus and Paul believed that the wicked would be exterminated, never to live again. They did not believe or preach an eternal torment for sinners.” And it may be that the book of Revelation shares this view. However, re-reading just now the last three chapters of Revelation, it is by no means clear to me that the book shares this view.
True, there were as yet no humans in the lake of fire when John tells us that that is where the devil and the beast and the false prophet “*will be* [my emphasis] tormented day and night forever and ever.” (NRSV) However, humans are added later. From the text itself, it seems to me to be entirely plausible that it is the view of the book of Revelation that the humans added later to the lake of fire will there meet the same fate as the non-humans previously consigned.
Thank you so very much for laying out your argument so clearly, Bart. I look forward (as always!) to reading your book!
🙂
If all sinners are annihilated, as well as Death and Hades, at the Final Judgment, why should the “lake of fire” exist at all after that? Is it because the Devil, the Beast, and the “prophet” WILL be punished forever in said eternal pyre?
It may be that this is why it was first created.
Verse 22:15 has always puzzled me. It’s as though the saints are in the New Jerusalem but outside are still all the sinners, just kind of hanging around.
Yup, I find it confusing too!
In your September 12, 2018 sheep-and-the-goats post, this exchange took place:
JohnKesler:
Matthew 10:14-15
14If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. 15Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgement than for that town.
Matthew 11:23-24
23And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be brought down to Hades. For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24But I tell you that on the day of judgement it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom than for you.’
Don’t these verses teach that there will be graduated levels of punishment on judgment day? If so, how do these verses comport with Matthew 25’s binary punishment, wherein everyone is either a sheep or goat, given eternal life or destroyed?
Bart:
Yes, it does seem to. On the other hand, it’s hard to figure out what is actaully being talked about. How will a village be punished on judgment day?
JohnKesler today, October 3:
I would say that the residents of Sodom were being judged collectively, since not even ten righteous people were found there (Gen. 18:32), and Lot, his wife and their daughters–even if they were considered righteous (cf. 2 Peter 2:7)–fled (Gen. 19:15f). I quote this exchange because Revelation 20:11-15, which you cite in this post, seems to indicate graduated judgment for individuals: “the dead were judged by the things written in the books, according to what they had done.” Should we not infer from this (and Rev. 22:12) that someone who had done more evil than another would be punished more harshly? If the unrighteous are simply annihilated, which seems to be your view (please correct me if I’m wrong), how can it be said that they are judged according to their works, which, as I said in the initial exchange, seems at odds with Matthew 25’s binary view of judgment?
“according to their deeds” *could* mean some would be punished more than others; but the lake of fire doesn’t seem to be differentiated punishment, so it could also mean “because of their deeds”
Did you say somewhere that the number of Christians at the end of the first century was around 3,000?
Also, is there a source for understanding what first century Christian gatherings would have been like?
I used to have a picture in my mind of congregations of hundreds of people in big stone buildings back then who were in clear communication with each other rather than a much smaller, private thing in homes spread out around the Mediterranean.
Thanks so much
8000-10,000. We have only scraps of information about what actually happened in house churches, but it involved prayers, hymns, scripture, and alms collection.
You make a very good case but doesn’t this cause a tension between Rev 20:10 and 20:15?. Satan is thrown into the Lake of Fire and burns forever but those humans not found in the book of Life are thrown in to be annihilated. John doesn’t say the condemned humans burn forever but wouldn’t the reader naturally make an association between Satan’s fate and the humans’ fate? I think this is the passage where you’ll get the most pushback from the supporters of eternal torture.
thanks
The difference might be that the Devil is my nature an immortal creature and humans are mortals.
I know you meant “by nature” but I snickered at “my nature”. Ooopsie!
Ha!
We can’t get into the mind of the revelations guy but I would hazard this is where he’s going
For one its true the ot uses these terms metaphorically
This feller likely means it literally
And the second judgement according to one’s deeds seems pointless if they all just die. A plausible alternative is, like the martyrs can early bird in paradise, the devil gets early bird to hell, and the rightious follow after the revival into paradise and the sinners burn
Death and hades being in the lake potentially mean something to the effect of, neither an end to the joy nor any suffering will afflict the martyrs and rightious in new Jerusalem.
Really I just don’t get the feel, though it can be read this way, that John is intending a kind of temporary suffering.
And logically it makes sense they aren’t revived and judged only to get killed again in a few minutes.
I fell in to a burnin lake of fire….
Where does the Bible say that Satan is immortal? If you say that it’s an inference from Revelation 20:10 and/or Matthew 25:41, then this would seem to undercut your argument that the reason that the fire is “eternal,” even though, in your view, people don’t burn in it forever, is because Satan and demons–unlike people–are immortal. In other words, Satan’s immortality is a begged question.
So far as I know it doesn’t. But the entire Jewish and Christian traditions seem to presuppose that angels do not die.
“So far as I know [the Bible] doesn’t [say that Satan is immortal]. But the entire Jewish and Christian traditions seem to presuppose that angels do not die.”
Consider Psalm 82:
1 God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgement: 2 ‘How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?…6 I say, ‘You are gods, children of the Most High, all of you; 7 nevertheless, you shall die like mortals…
If even gods, who were obviously something other than human, could “die like mortals,” then even if we assume arguendo that Satan at some point was immortal, this would not preclude his death, for if the gods could die, why couldn’t Satan? The typical proof-texts used to claim that Satan was an angel are Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, but those passages refer to the kings of Babylon and Tyre, respectively. Paul calls Satan an “angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14), but it’s not clear if he is saying that Satan is a specific type of being, an angel, or if he means that Satan is a messenger–the definition of the word translated “angel”–of light. Even if the former, as I say above, I don’t think this means he couldn’t die. If the basic premise that Satan is immortal is not correct–and I appreciate your candor in acknowledging that no Bible passage says this–then the reasoning that the fire must burn eternally because it has to burn immortal beings (how could an immortal being be hurt by fire?) is not sustained. Then we are right back where we started, which is pondering why the fire must be eternal if people are simply annihilated.
Interesting. Of course, there were wide ranging views among ancient Jews, and the idea of “Satan” is an apocalyptic view quite different from the views embraced by the Psalms.
So…when did this Devil fellow appear? Satan (The Satan) was an employee of sorts; then we have this Devil being, and the Beast, and the Prophet. Quite a menagerie. I’m wondering if you’ve sorted all this out in one of your books.
Not at any length. But it has to do with the development of Jewish apocalypticism and the dualistic view it embraced, where teh “adversary” becomes an adversary not just of humans but of God. The Beast and Prophet are Revelation’s own devising.
Now, Dr. Ehrman,
Would later theologians, like Marcion, who distinguished between the wrathful God of the old testament and the benevolent God of the new (or maybe different, successively revealed, versions of one God), have argued that Satan was employed by the former, while being opposed to the latter?
I’ve often wondered what Marcion’s view of Satan was.
if x is jesus
and sins is y
y is poured into x
consequence of y = eternal damnation.
since god needs x to be punished and since y = eternal damnation, why isn’t x being punished right this minute ?
if god saved y from eternal damnation and y is still being punished (how are sins without host being punished) , what was the point of making y (jesus) suffer?
it seems like a complete and utter useless act, SINS/x is STILL being damned, while jesus/x is no longer damned .
If Luke is the first to introduce a literal lake of fire, then I question whether Revelation could have been written before Luke. If the lake of fire in Revelation is only meant to be symbolic, then why does the author say the beast and the false prophet will be tormented day and night forever and ever?
The rich man does not appear to be in a lake. As to Revelation, it’s hard to know how it could be literal, if the beast is the Roman empire (i.e., the government).
Right. It’s not a lake of fire, but the rich man is engulfed in flames as a punishment.
I have difficulty seeing the lake of fire as symbolism for annhialation when Rev. 19:20 says the beast (government or maybe the people that ran the government) and the prophet were thrown in there alive. Rev. 20:9 does sound like annhialation, but I am not seeing how being tormented day and night forever can mean anything else except what it says.
My view is that this is simply metaphorical language. The reasons: (a) it’s typical to say such things in the BIble without meaning them literally. When Isaiah 34 says that the country of Edom will be burned with pitch and sulfur and that “night and day it shall not be quenched, its smoke will go up forever” no one would think that if you visit the Middle East today you will still see it burning and smoking. It just means it will be permanently destroyed; (2) So too in Revelation; the book can never be made into a literal time line (“forever and ever”); that’s pretty clear already when the “sixth seal” is broken and the entire universe dissolves — but we’re only in chapter 6! Plenty more disasters happen on the earth even after it is destroyed. Trying to make sense of it in terms of standard chronology just never works.
The Wars of the Jews, Book IV
The country of Sodom borders upon it. It was of old a most happy land, both for the fruits it bore and the riches of its cities, although it be now all burnt up. It is related how, for the impiety of its inhabitants, it was burnt by lightning; in consequence of which there are still the remainders of that Divine fire, and the traces [or shadows] of the five cities are still to be seen, as well as the ashes growing in their fruits; which fruits have a color as if they were fit to be eaten, but if you pluck them with your hands, they dissolve into smoke and ashes. And thus what is related of this land of Sodom hath these marks of credibility which our very sight affords us.
I’m not disputing that the Bible uses figurative language, but doesn’t the Josephus quote above show that some people believed that cities *could* go on burning? If a biblical author thought the same thing, how could he express this so that no one would think that the language is metaphorical?
Yes, some people today continue to take it all literally. So it’s certainly possible to take it all that way. Whether that’s what the author had in mind is another question….
What about 2 Esdras’ and 4 Maccabees’ description of eternal torment by fire?
Matthew and Luke seem to give similar descriptions as Revelation; Matthew 8:29: Suddenly they shouted, “What have you to do with us, Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?”
Luke 16:25-28 but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony. Besides all this, between you and us a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.’ He said, ‘Then, father, I beg you to send him to my father’s house—for I have five brothers—that he may warn them, so that they will not also come into this place of torment.’
Revelation 20:10 And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
If Revelation is more aligned with Isaiah 34 in that the lake of fire is annhialation, then I can’t see John using the word “torment”. It’s very specific. Esdra and Maccabees uses it several times to mean eternal torture and its associated with the Judgment. Along with Matthew and Luke.
Yes, I have a discussion of 4 Maccabees in my book. And I’m not talking about the torment of God’s immortal enemies in the book, but about whether *humans* are subject to eternal torment. And I’ve discussed Lazarus and the rich man already on the blog, no?
Follow up of my last comment:
I’m not trying to be argumentative but only asking questions that some Christians will ask when they read your book. As for chapter 6, some interpret that as destruction rather than the universe dissolving.
The new Jerusalem—is that an actual city or a metaphor for the church? Especially the ones who were martyred.
And finally, (yes, I’m finished!) Matthew seems to show early signs that the idea of eternal torment and torture is present since he changes Mark’s story.
Hopefully someone who reads the entire book, and not just the snippets, will find it more compelling!
Here’s a fun question: Who did the writer of Revelation think the Devil was? Of course he equates the terms Devil/Satan/Dragon and perhaps enigmatically the “ancient serpent” in chapter 12. In 20:10, of course he thinks that the devil will be thrown into the lake of fire to join the beast (Nero?) and the also enigmatic “false prophet”/second beast of chapter 13/cult of emperor worship??? (I’m speculating on that one) and the three of them would be tormented forever. Finally 20:14 the personified Death and Hades (in ch. 6:8 the rider of the 4th horse and a figure that followed with him) are also thrown into the lake of fire to experience the second death, which is arguably a different fate than that of the devil, the beast, and the false prophet – who will not die, but rather suffer eternally.
Anyway, an argument could be made that Jesus equated Satan with Beelzebul (Prince Lord, of ancient near eastern mythology) Matt. 12:24-27 cf 2 Kings 2:2ff Baalzebub (Fly Lord)
Is the writer of revelation, equating the Devil/Satan/Dragon and “ancient serpent” with like… Rahab/Leviathan/Tannin or Ba’al? Or doing a courtesy to the snake in Gen. 3?
YEs, he thinks the Devil is an evil superhuman power that had been in heaven and then cast down by Michael, so that he then started to afflict the earth with his wickedness. He is behind the Beast (Roman empire, personified in Nero), and his days are numbered.
You say that “there are no humans in this sulfurous lake” while in the very next paragraph you quote Revelation 20:15” If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, that person was thrown into the lake of fire.” Can you explain this apparent contradiction? These are humans, aren’t they?
I may have mistated my view. Humans are thrown *into* the fire but it destroys them, so they aren’t alive in the fire once they are destroyed. That’s in contrast to the Devil, the Beast, and his Prophet. (It’s like weeds being thrown into a furnace; when they burn up they aren’t there any more)
I’ve always thought it strange that “Hades” (a place where the lake exists; or even just a place, if not), is itself thrown into the lake of fire. Perhaps, John (writing in Greek, and being in the Hellenized area of Asia Minor) meant the God of the Underworld, Hades himself. Would he have believed in the god Hades?
The Lake of Fire doesn’t appear to be in Hades in Revelation; it’s up there in heaven.
That’s interesting. I never thought about the Lake of Fire being anywhere else other than hell. Now that you mentioned that it’s in heaven, I went back to read it. However, with this new idea in mind, it seems like the Lake of Fire is here on earth.
In Revelation 19, there was a war with earthly kings with the rider on the horse. It seems that it’s easier for the heavenly army to come down here rather than the earthly mortals to go up there. So my question would be 1) if it’s in heaven, how did the earthly army get there; 2) can you explain how to read the Lake of Fire being in heaven?
Thanks, Bart! Much love.
Actually, you may be right. I”ve always just imagined the “final judgment” taking place in the heavenly realm — it’s before “the throne” which in ch. 4 is in heaven. But the text of ch. 20 doesnt say directly either way.
Dr
Evangelists are making a connection between ezekiel 38 and current events, have you written any thing on this? Was it a false prophecy?
I talk about this entire fundamentalist excitement about the Middle East in my most recent book Armageddon.